I _r x"T.-A <br />111-i-10, .-toll 2-milm "M 1 1), 11 i1bi i I. --_j <br />Our website serves as a national clearinghouse for information related to the regulation of towers and <br />wireless facilities. As such, it is relied upon by hundreds of municipal attorneys and officials. CMS is also the <br />author of more than 800 local ordinances in 34 states and the administrator of the ordinances in more than <br />700 communities in those states, and as such we are frequently asked what the goals of a well-crafted <br />ordinance regulating tower and wireless facilities should contain and accomplish. Here are some <br />suggestions as regards some of the goals a community may wish to achieve in the development of its <br />ordinance. Over 15 years with never a successful challenge, we've found that a key to preventing a <br />successful challenge is that ordinances regulating this issue should require, limit, prohibit, allow or incent <br />(through specific policies); but not 'encourage' or 'request'. While some may disagree, we've found this <br />approach works extremely well and makes the ordinance and its intent rational, practical, unambiguous, <br />enforceable, defensible and discourages challenges. <br />Establish an ordinance that contains the ability to create `Win-Win' scenarios for all parties when possible. <br />Only a community that is truly in true control can do this; <br />Protects all legal rights and authority allowed under applicable law and does not sacrifice rights a <br />community's legal rights and authority for a 'get along' relationship'; <br />Assure the Community is placed in control and knows how to use the ordinance (to the extent allowed by <br />applicable law), so that it may then make informed decisions and choose the extent to which it wishes to <br />exercise that control; <br />Assure there are no loopholes or ways to avoid, evade or circumvent the ordinance, or the Community's <br />intent as expressed in the ordinance; <br />Assure the ordinance is as technology neutral as possible to minimize the need to amend or revise it as <br />technology evolves; <br />Establish an enforceable `Proof-of-Technical-Need' requirement for what is requested, as the first 'test', <br />since everything else should be based on this; <br />Minimize the likelihood of residents' fears, resentment and political dissatisfaction; <br />Assure the means to require the least visually intrusive facility reasonably possible; <br />Assure that certain types of facilities, e.g. towers, do not go in areas not deemed in the public interest <br />and that the right types of facilities (that don't change the nature, character or property values of an area) <br />are located in areas where the Community deems the visual intrusiveness to be a concern; <br />Assure that cost of permitting is not a factor that is required to be considered; <br />Assure that taxpayers' dollars don't ever have to pay for or subsidize the processing of applications, <br />inspections and the administration of the permit; <br />Assure that the right safety codes and standards are required to be complied with, e.g. the latest edition of <br />ANSI EIAMA 222. This is critical; <br />Assure required compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and rules; <br />Assure the ordinance allows the Community to realize the maximum revenue allowable from carriers and <br />owners of support structures for the Community; <br />Minimize the likelihood of successful legal challenges to the ordinance <br />Contact Info: <br />L.S. (Rusty) Monroe <br />Mobile: (518) 573-8842 <br />E-Mail: Lmonroe8CcDnc.rr.com <br />Address: 3113 Billiard Ct., Wake Forest, NC 27587 <br />' Example: In one state recently the League of Municipalities 'negotiated' a model ordinance with <br />the tower and wireless industries that (unintentionally) transfers control of a number of issues to <br />the industry. <br />